Talk:Calcium

Template:V0.5

Travertine Formations

In one of the pictures the caption is "Travertine terraces Pamukkale, Turkey", which i think could be changed to "Travertine terraces near Pamukkale, Turkey" or "in Pamukkale, Turkey." Am I right? 173.79.68.101 (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC) An IP you dont need to care about :D

Sources of calcium

I have just read on a website that tinned fish and tofu are good sources of calcium. When I can locate the web-based reference for this, I may add it to the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This only true for calcium set tofu see: [1] [2] --Stone (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If "tinned fish" are sardines to be eaten with bones, Ca is much higher. As opposed to say kippered herring filet. SBHarris 19:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

calcium

why calcium ion require low pH of human body — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.42.67.95 (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hw do you know it does? Rephrase or restate your question. Start with your assumption. SBHarris 19:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 December 2012

This is very misleading and worded grossly improperly:

"In July 2006, a report citing research from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington claimed that women in their 50s gained 5 pounds (2.3 kg) less in a period of 10 years by taking more than 500 mg of calcium supplements than those who did not. However, the doctor in charge of the study, Dr. Alejandro J. Gonzalez also noted it would be "going out on a limb" to suggest calcium supplements as a weight-limiting aid.[43]"

They did not lose weight BY taking calcium pills ... rather there was a correlation between those taking calcium pills and those who lost weight. IN FACT, it is not known if taking calcium pills has any effect on weight loss, since CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION!

173.76.251.128 (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the wording is problematic. As a single study with ambiguous conclusions, the content is not relevant anyway, so I have simply removed it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Calcium cyclamate

"Calcium cyclamate (Ca(C6H11NHSO3)2) was used as a sweetening agent but is no longer permitted for use because of suspected cancer-causing properties."

The above statement represent purely US-centric point of view. Cyclamate salts (including calcium one) are legitimate sweeteners in many parts of the world, e.g. in EU.

Thanks! In the cyylamte it was right. --Stone (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see such prompt response and adjustments to the text. Regards, AW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.19.40.231 (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 June 2013

There is a number of known calcium isotopes exceeding 48 nucleons. Known today are isotopes until Ca56 with half life and decay products (see e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0994 ). Could these be included into the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.222.216 (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

see main article Isotopes of calcium--Fjalnes (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Supplementation & Cancer

Discussion of this content.

Any content added to this article on this topic should be sourced to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. We shouldn't be quoting primary research, particularly to complicate what is found in a strong secondary source. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

* That policy does not say that articles should ONLY contain secondary sources. You are removing ALL mention of certain areas of research. Why remove all reference to the subjects? Simply because there are no secondary sources for it?

* Those were credible scientific journals and the *person* who contributed them obviously worked hard to provide a succint summary. They are not worth any mention at all? If you disagree about the importance of that research or the strength of its outcomes, then say *that*. If you think it deserves fewer words in the article, then why not provide a briefer summary. If the other person's summary was good (which it was!) but just not important enough to take so much emphasis, then move the other person's summaries to the comments. What purpose does it serve to remove all mention of that research?

* You are wholesale removing the work of others who provided good summaries of recent research and credible citations. This is not more scientific, nor is it more balanced. It is just pure censorship.

* I am a supportor and donor to Wikipedia, but I am very tired of the way Wikipedia has worded this policy to encourage this behaviour of censoring rather than improving. I don't have time to argue with you about Wikipedia policies or to figure out how to use appeals processes. But you are turning people away from Wikipedia as a community. This practice of wholesale removing well written summaries and credible, relevant, and informative citations makes it so that people are afraid to contribute to Wikipedia. People like you make people like me want to find other projects to support instead. This is not the model by which you improve the scientific literacy and engagement of people who contribute here. It is just turns them away. Think twice about whether you really think what you are doing is in the best interests of this community. Ajobin (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Instead, I think we should simply follow our policies. Obviously, contributing to MEDRS-related content on Wikipedia requires a great deal of competency that can be intimidating for newcomers. It would be helpful to have guidelines and essays to augment MEDRS for newcomers, perhaps like those for WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That policy does not say that secondary sources are not allowed. Those were credible scientific journals. The summary was succint, but perhaps it deserved fewer words or a different characterization. What purpose does it serve to remove all mention of that research? Why isn't it worth mentioning that this is an area of active research?? Ajobin (talk) 07:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you just assuming that the contributor was a newbie or do you know who contributed that summary which was removed? Ajobin (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS has, in bold, "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content". There are a few very rare exceptional circumstances where a primary source makes sense; this isn't one of them. If research is significant we can find it mentioned in good secondary sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(1) Why remove all mention of this as an area of research? Would it not be more constructive to remove the specific findings from primary sources but still mention that (weak) research has been done on XYZ subjects?

(2) One of the findings you removed was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. It was from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 36,282 postmenopausal women from 40 Women's Health Initiative centers. The paper had over a dozen authors. Not exactly a typical "primary source" situation. Publication in the New England Journal of Medicine is not a good enough arbiter of study quality? Rather than remove this information, would it not be more constructive to tag it as needing a better citation (from a secondary source)? Ajobin (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of where they were published, or how many authors, primary sources should not be used except in select circumstances, which I don't see here. Important areas of research may be mentioned under Research directions, when they are covered by independent secondary reviews. We don't publish original thought.

For the person asking for a further explanation on MEDRS, this page may help: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your reply. I feel like I am talking to a brick wall otherwise. I was not the original contributor of those summaries. I contributed some other information to this article, which has not been removed, but I guess should be if we want to be consistent. It was in my watchlist after that. My main motivation here is this: it is not constructive to wholly remove the work of others and censor entire topics. It is better to mention things with due weight, not remove them wholly. If we are going to remove things, let's be consistent. There are other primary source references from the New England Journal of Medicine in this article which were not removed. And many others from lesser journals. Shall we remove those also? Nevermind that much of the article's informative content will be gone if we follow this standard? If this is the standard that we are following, then we should do so consistently and not enforce MEDRS so selectively.

I am not suggesting we publish original thought. Why can't we just say that such and such are areas being studied (preserving references until better ones are found) and say that the research is not conclusive? Why isn't that a better thing to do? I think it is for several reasons (1) The reader will know this is an area of research. (2) We build upon the work of other editors rather than just removing it, which is better for community, and the editor can better learn from this what level of detail is acceptable, rather than finding his topic wholly censored. (3) Furture editors will see that this topic has been addressed at an appropriate level of detail, rather than coming along to make the same mistake. Ajobin (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to change the policies and guidelines, this page is not the place to try it. They're being correctly applied here (i.e. in the case of this contested edit). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 02:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with MEDRS. I have a problem with: (1) Your entirely removing certain subjects (and another editor's work) rather than constructively editing it down to give due weight to this area of research and the (inconclusive) findings in it. (2) Your selective implementation of MEDRS in this article. If you insist that this article have no primary sources (even randomized controlled trial published in journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine), then we should do so consistently. We will need to remove a lot of information from this article. Is that what we should do? Ajobin (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have a problem with me you need to raise it in another forum. Please keep this page's discussion focused on content. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Another straw man, instead of responding to my points. I do NOT have a problem with *you*. I have a problem with your selective enforcement of MEDRS *here*. I have not looked at your work elsewhere on WP. I also think that wholly removing another editor's work and topics in this article is not constructive for the article or for the spirit of collaborative editing. Ajobin (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)#

What you call my "selective enforcement" is effectively an accusation of impropriety, and makes no contribution of value here; if you want to pursue that line take it elsewhere. FYI, as I remember, I came to this article entirely focused on the cancer aspect, and my edits will have watchlisted it for me. I then react to edits that appear on my watchlist. It's entirely appropriate to delete other editors' comments contributions if they are crap & degrade the encyclopedia. Since competence is required at some point people wishing to edit here need to make some effort to understand the WP:PAGs that apply, and that includes WP:AGF, which you are obviously struggling with. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow are you determined to make this personal & hostile? What point are you making by citing me CIR? Exactly how have I not AGF here? In truth, I have *no* doubts that your intention is to improve the article. I just think some of your edits are overly destructive. To take another example, your recent edits on Bone Health are sure to inspire new edits to add what people perceive as missing information. Ajobin (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Ajobin, please have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; it isn't always feasible (timewise) for an editor to go back and fix everything in any given article. Often, the best we can do with limited volunteer time is fix what we see when we see it, and hopefully use that as a means of bringing other editors up to speed on policies and guidelines. I would personally kill on sight all poorly sourced text, exactly as we do for BLPS, but current policy on Wikipedia doesn't allow for that, which means someone has to take the time to painstakingly go back and rewrite the article from correct sources, which can take weeks to months. But the prior existence of anything that doesn't conform with policy or guideline doesn't mean we should add to it with new edits. (I haven't checked all the other NEJM sources you reference, but remember that some of them might in fact be secondary sources ... it is timeconsuming to check them all, but I linked you above to further info on that topic ... perhaps you are willing to undertake that work). I have moved your RFC template to the top of the section, and it need not be signed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - (summoned by the bot) - Is there a specific edit this debate circles around? Can someone provide a diff? If not, what exactly are we debating? NickCT (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for you input. And thanks to Sandy too. The edit I am getting at is here. To be really honest, after reading MEDRS and also hearing the reasoning behind deleting rather than revising down, I do not think this is a huge deal. I did look at those studies and would agree that their conclusions are not as strong or definitive as the original text (however nicely written) made it out to be. Probably the original contributor just did not understand the need for 2nd parties to evaluate any flaws in the study design. I do still think that removing the New England Journal of Medicine citation is a loss versus putting it a better perspective (stating that the findings are not conclusive). The main thing that I think though is that this haphazard enforcement of a policy is wasting the good will of editors who are not familiar with MEDRS. Wikipedia is allowing people to write such well written detailed edits with the intent to improve the article in total ignorance that this (a) does not fit a policy (because said policy is inconsistently enforced even in the same article) (b) that the policy can be selectively enforced. It wouldn't be so bad for the community if editors were willing to refactor the previous work, but they find it easier to delete. Personally, I wanted to see what kind of response this gets and what the general feeling was about this arbitrary MEDRS policing that I am observing across Wikipedia. This leads to bias when certain POV & subjects are subjected to MEDRS and others in the same article are not. In the case of this article, I have to admit is it is not a significant bias. My feeling is there needs to be a change in policy -- not MEDRS, but the consistent enforcement of it & notification about it. If you have any thoughts about that more generally feel free to comment on my talk page. Ajobin (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, again, Ajobin. I appreciate the feedback but, in this case, you are "preaching to the choir"!! You are advocating for the same thing that I have long advocated -- that we need a consistent policy, similar to what we have for WP:BLPs (Biographies of Living People). The BLP policy originated because protection of living people is so important that editors are able to "shoot on sight" any text anywhere on Wikipedia about a living person that is poorly sourced or unsourced. I have always argued we should be able to do some for medical information, since peoples' lives and health can be affected by that content. I also believe that, in the health area, no information is better than potentially bad information, so I would remove everything that is poorly or unsourced, exactly as we are at liberty to do for BLPs. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer -- a community-wide discussion -- the proposal to prominently link to MEDRS and add a disclaimer on articles did not prevail. Further, there is currently no practical way for a few volunteer editors to go back and clean up all the seriously bad medical content thoughout Wikipedia. We have no BLP-like policy, and we have no disclaimer, and to clean up the bad content on every article is a painstaking and time consuming process. We can only hope that discussions like this one will help bring new editors up to speed, and that they will help in rewriting the significant amounts of really poor medical content that is everywhere on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That proposal looks like a good idea. I liked the modified A or B the best. More to the point in this debate, I also agreed wtih Alexbrn comment on that proposal about having a warning before editing. In fact, the only problem I see with saying "Anyone can edit Wikipedia" is that it will inspire more people to do so. In absence of a strong warning at the time of editing about MEDRS in language comprehensible to lay people, it will lead to 'crap' edits as Alex calls them. Personally, before reading and rereading MEDRS, I would not have thought a peer-reviewed, randomized, double-blind trial with multiple authors from different centers was an unreliable primary source before reading that. And when I already see such studies being used in the same article, I would (and did!) think it was fine to add others. It is really discouraging for editors to work in good faith on something, only to see it removed entirely. So I think we should avoid encouraging more people into this situation, so long as it exists.

Based on your and Alexbrns complaints about the reformats I made, and the lack of any positive comments, I restored it to as it had been. I just wanted to make it more scannable for new readers. I'm sorry it was less readable for you. Ajobin (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support Proposition & Support New Wording - @Ajobin and SandyGeorgia: - After looking at the edit I think I'd support the new, MEDRS-compliant wording mainly for two reasons. 1) The original version looked technical to the point of appearing to be an academic journal. Wikipedia is not an academic journal. 2) I don't think the cancer subsection provides anything to a reader to begin with. Frankly I'd be for deleting it all together. If the best opinion we can find says Ca supplementation may or may not affect likelihood of cancer, why mention it? I'm sure Ca supplementation may or may not affect one's chance of alien abduction. Does a reader really benefit by knowing that? Failing deleting the section, I'd suggest it be kept as short and simple as possible. Since the MEDRS compliant version is shorter and simpler, I support it. NickCT (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! The thing is calcium supplementation is not like alien abduction. This is an active area of scientific investigation for a reason, and alien's abudcting you for your bones :-) is not. When people who are interested in this come to the article, and see nothing, they want to add what they have found. The fact that somebody already did is proof of this. IMO it is better to say *something* brief about it. It (1) is an area of scientific research, (2) shows more respect for the work of others (3) deters s/o else from adding the same kind of information.

I didn't think the original was too technical. As a lay person, it was exactly the kind of thing I would want to know if I wanted some general information about the benefits etc of calcium supplements. But it was not well-founded/sourced, so something else should be said.

Sandy, I will take a look at the failed project. My intuition is that this failed because people do not trust the agenda of the people who want to control these articles. If they were less biased (ie, more consistent) in what they select for attack (and I am not so much talking about this example), it might succeed. Biography is more general interest. Science requires more education to interpret well. This sets up a concerns of elitism and the systemic biases that go with that. Especially when we see that already happening; many of the MEDRS police are strikingly unwilling to take a collaborative approach or explain themselves to we less qualified mortals. Ajobin (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Since cancer is many diseases, not one, you need reviews for each type. Calcium has done best in the prospective epidemiological study of colon cancer, and I'm especially impressed with a significant positive dose response, which is as good as you get without prospective *randomized* trials. So in my mind, it's worth mentioning with that caveat.[3]. I have no problem putting in the NEJM study as our single biggest and longest randomized study, [4], but it was 7 years and needs replication. Right now the best epidemiology says yes, but the largest randomized study says no. SBHarris 21:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I hope it invites some educated responses. My two cents is that the citation from the New England Journal of Medicine that was here worthy of inclusion, but I will defer to the experts on this.

Ajobin (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't be amateur dealers in primary research, especially when scholarly reviews are available ( e.g. PMID 25386054 ) that give a professional assessment of that very same study. Wikipedia is a tertiary-level publication digesting accepted knowledge as found in good secondary sources, not an ersatz secondary publication attempting to sift and present primary material. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I will defer to your and other commenters' judgements on that NEJM citation.

In the meantime, another editor has recently addeed a strong citation to a very thorough review written for a lay audience by the NIH summarizing their findings on the issue of cancer and calcium supplementation. With this citation, the topic is better covered. An empty section invites people to 'improve' it -- seeing no evidence of previous work. With the current version, they can at least see that the topic has been addressed and that there are other editors on the topic preceding them. The current wording is strong enough to deter the casual editor from seeing an empty topic and unknowingly wasting effort adding weak information. Ajobin (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It is okay with me if this RFC is closed in a few days. I will in any case MIA for the holidays. NickCT agreed with Alexbrn to keep all his changes. Sbharris seems to mildly agree with me that it may be worth mentioning the NEJM reference, with reservations. A better source has been added. If the other commenters are satisfied with current version, then so am I. Thank you again to everyone for their helpful responses.Ajobin (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Since I can't edit this myself (and I'm not sure who to ask when it's protected), I wanted to post this here. I've worked for a vitamin/supplement company for almost 8 years and I can tell you that part of that section in this article is quite wrong: "However, supplement labels will usually indicate how much calcium is present in each serving, not how much calcium carbonate is present." Some companies list the elemental Calcium while others list the complex (eg. they list X mg of Calcium Carbonate, but don't specify how much elemental). The way they differentiate that is when they say "Calcium ___ Calcium Carbonate"... the blank will either be "as" or "from." If it's "from," then it is the elemental, but if it's "as," it's the complex. I'm sorry, I don't have a citation at this moment, but I'm sure I can find one... it's the general guidelines within the industry as to the FDA's guidelines on labeling laws.

While I doubt anyone would go to this article to find this information in their initial searching, it is an important difference where some people take the 1,000 mg "as" Calcium Carbonate and deceive themselves into thinking that's all they need for the day and take no more sources of it (which is even worse if they are taking it because they are Calcium deficient). Can someone correct that statement under the "Dietary Supplements" section to give the correct information?Burleigh2 (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

 DoneThis was unsourced in any case, so I have removed it for now. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Osteoperosis

I'm removing this content (the "Osteoperosis" section) from the article for discussion here. The topic of calcium supplementation and osteoperosis does not appear to have coverage in good secondary sources, so I worry this content is at the wrong level.

Such studies often do not test calcium alone, but rather combinations of calcium and vitamin D. Randomized controlled trials found both positive and negative effects. The different results may be explained by doses of calcium and underlying rates of calcium supplementation in the control groups. A 5-year, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in elderly women found that, due to poor long-term compliance, supplementation was not effective in preventing clinical fractures in the studied elderly population, but it was effective in those patients who were compliant.

References

Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• This is a pretty good overall review-- the latest i can find. It should support a paragraph which is approximately that of the review conclusion itself. [5]. SBHarris 06:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Super! I found another for child health too - will add. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)